Run by Wall St? Cause or Company?

In light of the Yahoo! - Microsoft fiasco, fellow bloggers Larry Dignan and Vinnie Mirchandani have been asking the question whether there is too much emphasis on just one stakeholder - the shareholder. After all, shouldn't a technology company (or any company for that matter) be equally focused on the value for customers, partners and employees.

I believe that the real problem is not that of prioritization of stakeholders but a more fundamental issue: Does your company stand for something?

Larry and Vinnie discussed the following in a recent conversation:
  • Technology companies cater to Wall Street interests too much often at the
    expense of good strategy.
  • Isn’t what a company does for customers and developers more important than
    shareholder interests?
  • What’s wrong with being a mid-size technology company if customers and employees are happy and the products–software, hardware, services–fit a need? There’s nothing wrong with it, but Wall Street would lead folks to believe that any company that isn’t acquired by Oracle isn’t worth existing.
  • And why are we listening to Wall Street at all given that analysts, investment bankers and other financial wonks can’t even manage their own businesses (subslime, credit swaps, write-offs galore)?

Even as I do agree that the recent focus on shareholder's (short-term) returns is probably misplaced, the real problem is elsewhere.

What Does The Company Stand For?

The problem with Yahoo! is not just its mediocre financial performance compared to its more successful cousin in Mountain View - Google, but that Yahoo! does not seem to stand for anything and rarely arouses any passion amongst customers, employees or partners. Its a listless organization that seems to be going through the motions - see this excellent post by Jeff Nolan.
Marc Andreesen recently wrote up an article praising dual-class structure to help management teams prevent hostile takeovers. I believe this is the wrong remedy - its a cure for a disease that should be prevented in the first place: A lack of clear vision around what a company is trying to achieve.

A company (and its management team) deserve to be independent as long as they inspire confidence among investors, employees, parters and customers that the company has a vision that it aspires to that the stakeholders can commit to.

After all, what does Yahoo! stand for? A hodge podge of websites relating to entertainment, communication, search etc with no grand vision of changing our (digital) lives. There are hundreds of smaller companies that are not under any duress to be acquired because their management teams inspire confidence around a vision.

Here is a list of companies that I don't know what they stand for, and hence will not have shareholders clamoring to keep them independent if the right opportunity came along:

  • BEA (Sold)
  • Yahoo!
  • Tibco
  • WebMethods (Sold)
  • IAC (Bought/Sold/Consolidated/Unbundled)

Contrast this with list with:

  • (Changing the enterprise software world; See my disclaimer)
  • Google (Organizing World's Information)
  • Amazon (Changed Retail, Now Web Services)
  • COST (Concur, Omniture, Salesforce and Taleo - the SaaS horsemen, per Phil Wainewright)

The same holds true beyond technology businesses - if your company does not stand for something bigger than management's entrenched interests and egos, its not very likely to inspire shareholders to forgo a 50% overnight return.

There is a story of two labourers working at a construction site, breaking stones. A passer-by asked one labourer what he was doing. “Breaking stones”, was the bored reply. A few yards down the road the traveller came across the other labourer. This worker was different; there was a spring in his steps and a tune on his lips. So the passer-by asked, “What are you doing?” “Oh, I am helping Christopher Wren to build the greatest cathedral in the world.” The vision of the great architect, Sir Christopher Wren, of building a cathedral that was to be the pride of England, gave meaning to the labourer’s work.

So, the question is: Do your stakeholders see your company as a stone-breaking venture or as a company that's building a Cathedral?

Related Professional Services Automation Articles

Share your Google Latitude location

A few months ago, we introduced Google Latitude, a new feature for mobile and iGoogle that lets you share your location with your friends. Since the launch, a lot of you have asked "What if I want to share my location with people who are not my...

Read more about Share your Google Latitude location...

Google Docs Users Spend Only 5 Minutes per Month o

Compete says that, on an average, a unique visitor to Google Docs logs in to his/her account just on 3 days per month. And the overall engagement level is even worse because an average visitor is spending just about 5 minutes per month on the Google...

Read more about Google Docs Users Spend Only 5 Minutes per Month on the Site...

Search Content

Featured Content


Which CMS Is Right For Me?

If you're wondering which CMS is the right one for your organization, this comprehensive guide will take you through the various options available, detailing the pros and cons of each. Download...Read More

Sales Force Automation Comparison Guide

Businesses of all sizes can benefit by automating all aspects of their sales processes with an SFA (Sales Force Automation) solution. But due to the sheer number of features that most SFA solutions...Read More

Oracle Magazine

Oracle Magazine contains technology strategy articles, sample code, tips, Oracle and partner news, how to articles for developers and DBAs, and more. Oracle (NASDAQ: ORCL) is the world's largest...Read More

How to Buy a Phone System

Considering a new phone system for your business? The Phone System Buyer's Guide from VoIP-News provides you with all of the information you need to make a more informed decision. The Guide helps you...Read More

View All Whitepapers